Hence, you would be the type that could be guilty of such a transgression. I find that disgusting. It the modern western societies today--the way children are raised does not contribute to early "maturity." Sure they are sexually aware and over-exposed to sexualization, but they are generally absolutely NOT "ready" for sex. That's like claiming a kid of 4 who is obsessed with his Matchbox cars is "ready" to drive--not.
That's not what I claimed. Actually, I would claim on the basis of the ability to make rational and informed decisions developed in early adolescence that the majority of that age group is competent and capable of governing their own lives as effectively as those currently classified as "adults" are.
As I've mentioned several times previously, there are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed and competent decisions, and they have not supported the baseless assertion that their capacities are beneath those of older persons in this regard.
An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled
The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:
"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the 'cutoffs' below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."
The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling,
Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that
“existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”
Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study entitled
Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.
In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that,
“the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.
On what basis do you rest your claim that adolescents lack such capacities?
You say "most"--I disagree STRONGLY. I think MOST are NOT ready until in their twenties. And again, it is not an "age" thing so much as it is a "maturity" thing. It's another failure of modern western society that our children are coddled in so many ways far longer than necessary, and yet pushed toward sex earlier and earlier. It's perverse.
You're mistaken. In the past century, and even in the past fifty years, the average marriage age and the popular conception of when people should marry has gradually increased to a higher and higher point. It's not that hoards of the young are suddenly sexually active; to a great extent, it's that their sexually active whilst not married, because it's not reasonable to expect people to remain virgins until they're 30.
Adolescence itself is a fairly recent social construct that effectively did not exist prior to the Industrial Revolution. As noted by Elizabeth Fussell and Frank Furstenberg in
The Transition to Adulthood during the 20th Century: Race, Nativity and Gender:
The age at which a person becomes an adult is inherently subjective. It could depend on a person's behavior, their status as a student, worker, spouse or parent, or their legal status. Adulthood may also be attained through socially recognized rites of passage. In the U.S. clear-cut age categories only began to emerge as socially salient in the late 19th and early 20th century (Kett 1977). Adolescence was "discovered" in the early 20th century as part of a social movement intended to protect children and youth from economic exploitation and to justify and promote the extension of standardized public education (Chudacoff 1989; Katz 1995; Zelizer 1994).
So I'd posit that your "analysis" requires some re-examination.
That's atrocious that you equate people with mental disabilities with animals.
Do you have any actual argument or substantive objections to offer, or do you prefer to persist with your logical fallacies?
